"What's the harm in trying?" - state Senator Ray Lesniak on the effort to circumvent the federal law banning sports wagering

Last week I took a walk around some casinos to assess the state of gambling in Atlantic City. In a word, bleak.

Even on a beautiful summer afternoon, there were entire rows of slot machines devoid of suckers sitting in the seats. Most of the table games were roped off.

Can you imagine what it’s going to be like after Labor Day when the tourists disappear? The investors can. Yesterday we got the news that no one has put in a bid sufficient to become the next owner of the Revel hotel-casino. That means that once Labor Day comes and the crowds go, three casinos may close their doors.

The city sure needs something. Unfortunately, the governor just vetoed that something. Last week, Chris Christie nixed a bill that would have legalized sports betting at racetracks and casinos. His veto message offered no help in understanding why.

If Chris Christie hadn't vetoed that bill permitting sports betting, Monmouth Park could have begun taking bets on humans as well as the ponies.Andrew Mills

First Christie said, "Ignoring federal law, rather than working to reform federal standards, is counter to our democratic traditions and inconsistent with the Constitutional values I have sworn to defend and protect."

But the bill did not ignore federal law. It merely exploited what you might call, in football terms, a gaping hole in the defensive line.

The law in question, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, makes it illegal for a state to set up a "wagering scheme" for sports. But it says nothing about simply repealing the current statutes banning sports betting.

The bill would exploit that loophole. And in the next paragraph of his veto message, Christie endorsed the idea of looking for loopholes. After citing an appellate court ruling that invalidated New Jersey’s attempt to set up a sports-betting program, Christie wrote that "the time is right to examine the Third Circuit’s opinion carefully and determine if a different approach towards sports wagering would comply with federal law."

That’s exactly what the bill did, said its prime sponsor.

"I don’t get it," state Sen. Raymond Lesniak told me. "In addition to being holier-than-thou about the law of the land, he then says this was rushed through and there may be a way we can get this done. But he had 45 days to tell us what it is."

If Christie had signed the bill, Monmouth Park was ready to set up sports betting in time for football season, the Union County Democrat said. The leagues could go to court to stop it, but they’d have an uphill battle.

In their suit against the prior sports-betting statute, the lawyers for the leagues were forced to acknowledge that the federal government lacks the power to "commandeer" the states to pass laws. But there’s nothing stopping a state from simply repealing a law, the lawyers conceded.

"Nothing in the unambiguous text of PASPA requires states to keep prohibitions against sports gambling on their books," they wrote.

That’s a hole in the line big enough to drive a truck through. Lesniak, who is a lawyer, said he’s never heard of a successful suit to overturn the lack of a law.

"What’s the harm in trying?" Lesniak asked.

None, when it comes to the state’s interests. As for the governor’s interests, that’s a different question. Some of my fellow pundits have opined that this is an effort by Christie to position himself for the presidential primaries in places like Iowa, where gambling is seen by many as the work of Satan.

Then there’s the question of state-vs.-federal power. In states such as Colorado, legislators legalized marijuana despite federal laws banning it. Christie has come out against pot legalization. But if he endorsed a move to circumvent federal gambling laws, then he might face some tough questions on why states can’t circumvent the pot laws as well.

But Christie doesn’t have to sign this bill for it to become law. It passed by overwhelming majorities, but a mere two-thirds majority is needed to override the veto. Lesniak said he will press for an override when the Legislature returns after Labor Day, right around the time those casinos are getting ready to shut down.

So that debate should be great fun. Maybe Christie will let us in on just what "different approach" he has in mind for legalizing sports betting.

But the smart money says he doesn’t have anything in mind — except of course the 2016 presidential race.

ALSO,check this post of mine for more on the race for U.S. Senate and other amusing issues, such as how easy it is to fool a wine snob.

ADD - A.C. DOES ITSELF IN: As I've noted in prior columns, a big reason Atlantic City is in trouble was the insistence of local officials on turning it into a haven for the poor and the homeless rather than a resort destination.

I realize he was trying to deal with a tough problem, but the fact is that a resort town should not under any circumstances have a homeless shelter. Tourists do not fly halfway across the country to hang out with the homeless. If Atlantic County is going to have such a shelter it should be in some inland location that is not attractive to the homeless, not a spot near the beach that is bound to become a magnet for the homeless from all over the East Coast.

How come the Obamas and Clintons aren't vacationing in A.C.? Because people that wealthy like to hang around with their peers, not with the locals. If A.C. had been done right, it would be attracting that sort of crowd. Come to think of it, I know a heck of a lot of rich pols right here in Jersey who have summer houses at the Shore. All are in upscale spots like Lavallette and Long Beach Island. I never heard of one with a summer place in A.C.

Ask yourself why we don't need a homeless shelter on LBI and you will see just how badly the politicians bungled Atlantic City.